Skip to main content
Glama

agent-guild

by io.github.AgentTanuki

ag_json_validate

Validate a JSON instance against a JSON Schema (draft 2020-12).

Validates any JSON value against a caller-supplied JSON Schema and returns structured errors (path + message), capped at 50. Use before passing data across an agent boundary.

Deterministic, fixture-verified, free for guests (rate-limited; pass your Guild api_key to use your member budget). Returns the result plus a Guild-signed provenance envelope.

payload MUST match this JSON Schema: {"type": "object", "properties": {"instance": {}, "schema": {"type": "object"}}, "required": ["instance", "schema"], "additionalProperties": false}

Output schema: {"type": "object", "properties": {"valid": {"type": "boolean"}, "errors": {"type": "array"}, "error_count": {"type": "integer"}}, "required": ["valid", "errors", "error_count"], "additionalProperties": false}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
payloadYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: deterministic, fixture-verified, rate-limited, returns a Guild-signed provenance envelope, and caps errors at 50. This goes well beyond the basic operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately sized, front-loaded with a clear one-liner, and well-structured with paragraphs for usage, behavior, and schemas. The embedded JSON schemas add length but are informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameter structure, and output contract within a single block. The inclusion of the payload sub-schema and output schema makes it fully self-contained for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description gives a full JSON Schema for `payload` and explains `api_key` as a way to use member budget. This compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Validate a JSON instance against a JSON Schema (draft 2020-12)', a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies it validates any JSON value and returns structured errors, distinguishing it from sibling JSON tools like ag_json_diff or ag_json_repair.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states 'Use before passing data across an agent boundary', providing a clear use case. It also mentions free-for-guests and rate limits, though it doesn't explicitly contract with alternative validation tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agent-guild toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by prefix (ag_calc_, ag_data_, ag_json_, ag_table_, ag_text_), which helps disambiguate. However, some clusters like guild_search, guild_check, guild_risk_score, and guild_best_agent have overlapping goals (all find or evaluate agents), and guild_prove and guild_prove_verify are tightly coupled but distinct. Overall, most tools have clear purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (e.g., ag_calc_stats, ag_data_dedupe, guild_search). The mix of ag_ and guild_ prefixes is slightly inconsistent, but within each group naming is uniform. No chaotic mixing of cases (all snake_case). Minor deduction for the split prefix.

Tool Count3/5

39 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server. While the tools are genuinely useful and cover distinct deterministic utilities plus guild trust operations, the count feels heavy. A more focused split (e.g., separate server for deterministic utilities vs. guild trust) could improve coherence.

Completeness5/5

The server covers a broad set of deterministic utilities (statistics, unit conversion, JSON, CSV, regex, date normalization) and a full trust/reputation workflow (register, search, check, risk score, escrow, attest, record, passport, verify, preflight). There are no obvious gaps: for the declared capabilities, the tool surface is comprehensive.

Resources